The Circular Word of Crop Circles

June 13, 2012June 13, 2012

Suzanne Taylor Vs. Colin Andrews – A little objectivity required

As in my previous post, Suzanne has had run-ins with two people who know very well the extent of human circle-making. Now, Colin Andrews broke more news about how fallable the BLT ‘science’ is by revealing that some of the guys who collect samples for BLT to test made their own crop circle to test the validity of the science. Sadly BLT deemed the constructed circle was the genuine article. Which should show that the BLT science has flaws. Now to really prove the science a double blind study is required, something no-one will touch with a barge-pole. It isn’t the first time that man-made circles have fooled the BLT team. This is a documented fact.

Now, the trickery that Colin alludes to regarding Roberts alleged mediumship is highlighted by a video that shows the images of Pat Delagado come directly from an old crop circle documentary. To show the evidence of this we just have to look at this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsa2oYECcFg&feature=youtu.be

Once you look at this you can see how easy it is to re-produce. Now Robert has been caught out previously with his alleged mediumship skills. And caught out badly on Dutch TV, which sealed his fate to those who are prepared to research objectively. So many question abound but sadly very few answers. A DVD is being produced? Well there is a surprise. Why is it that no-matter the researcher (or most of them at least) money comes into it at some point. How old-consciousness! Surely people shoudln’t have to pay for information when we have the means to diseminate information far and wide for free? When people talk of new consciousnesses they seem to forget the fiscal consciousness.

Robert is a fraud, and the evidence is out there IF you’re prepared to look for it. This article documents fairly well the truth about Robert. But don’t just take my word for it, do some research for yourself…

The worst on record and hardly qualify for the exquisite nature of the phenomena of the past thirty years.

& The People:

With Holland and the ongoing saga of self proclaimed medium Robbert van den Broeke taking center stage, its ironic that in his small band of followers , that well known controversial film maker Suzanne Taylor again sets forth more hatred towards others who disagree with her views, including myself. Just as Robbert himself says that “unconditional love” is the message he claims came to him with one of the latest crop circles. Which incidentally he knew was coming.

In the last few weeks, Nancy Talbott of BLT has touted claims by Robbert that he has captured images of my deceased friend Pat Delgado and also deceased hoaxer of the 80s Dave Chorley much to the shock and disappointment of Pat Delgado’s family who issued a statement calling it Trickery. . . .

Following Suzanne Taylor’s latest outburst I would like to correct a couple of the many untrue statements she has made. I’m sure some deliberately for maximum effect:

1. Anybody who has followed my research knows I have not researched this subject for just a couple of years, it will be 30 years next month.

2. Regards the BLT findings in the Edmonton, Canada formation which I was well aware did not extend to UK. BLT findings were that statistically significant findings were found in the more simple designs, exactly what I also found from a very different study of simple designs in UK during 1999 and 2000 – these also showed the more simple designs were likely not to have been made by people. My point was that BLT and my results showed agreement in that simple designs are more likely of the whole, to be non-man made.

3. I did not claim the BLT report of images of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley on cameras operated by Robbert van den Broeke was Trickery — this statement was made directly by Pat Delgado’s family which I posted but I did agree with their view. That is an important difference.

4. Like anyone else I am allowed my opinion. No I have no absolute evidence that Robbert has hoaxed these images, its my opinion that he has — that is all, although the evidence presented by retired University of London lecturer Roger Wibberley is very compelling . What I do know is that Pat and Dave are deceased and claims of their images with comments made by them beyond the grave place the burden of proof not with me but Robbert and Nancy Talbott. Lets get real.

5. Taylor says she is skeptical that Pat Delgado’s relatives contacted me. This is highly offensive to me and again Pats family. I would be taking a huge risk posting a statement which was not true, as she suggests especially because Pats daughter is a British magistrate and is the equivalent in the US as a low level judge. My tail would be on fire within minutes of making such a erroneous claim/statement.

This aside and knowing how these people are using the good names of deceased love ones, nobody, Taylor, Talbott or even van den Broeke has picked up the phone to Pat’s family or written a single word of apology for their unprofessional and insensitive public announcement. They choose instead to attack the messenger who would have the nerve to question their claims. Such is the way of today’s politics everywhere.

2012 does seem to be a mirror to us all for us to work harder on unconditional love and respect — with that I agree with Robbert.

I also want to ask those concerned, how will they feel if it is proven these images are faked?

If I am shown to be wrong about all this then I will be the first to apologize. I do admit that Robbert does appear to be a quiet gentle person.

It has crossed my mind that Robbert might not be his own boss in these matters?

You have released a film containing a debatable theme and the quality of your research and your portrayal of the phenomenon is not beyond criticism – and neither is your callous, unprovoked on Mr Andrews.

Andy may have a project to ‘denounce you’ but it also seems you have a project to denounce Colin Andrews judging by your page here – so please try to not act so surprised when people devote some of their time and resources to exploring and exposing your motives.

Do you seriously contend Mr Andrews has no right to reply this deceitful and insensitive manipulation of his deceased friend? Why did Talbott not seek to inform Dave and Pat’s respective families before plastering this obvious hoax all over her website? Hers was hardly the most compassionate response, and neither is your defending of it.

Robbert van den Broeke is an obvious fraud; his ‘apparitions’ are copied from books, and images all over the internet, despite what he and Talbott would have you believe. Hollywood TomFortas’ comment (that you have chosen to omit here) is a fitting analogy that would perhaps merit a second read through. His statement is indicative of the backlash building against you, and you would be wise to address it rather than to dismiss it.

If you cannot see what is wrong with this picture or your behaviour then why preach about turning evil people into heart-connected ones? Why should people listen to a Pharisee? If you choose to put yourself beyond criticism then there is little hope of change for you – and websites like Andy’s will multiply and the denouncing will intensify.

I’ll post this comment at Andy’s website should you choose not to publish it here.

Greetings, Mikey! Looks like you and I are charter members now of the “Censored by Suzanne” Club. Thankfully, we have outlets like here and over at Muertos’ THRIVE-Debunked blog to publish our respective “fatwahs” against Suzanne.

Today I sent off two messages to Colin Andrews. I’ll put them both up here.

====================

Colin,

I’ve been looking once again at the BLT page where Nancy shows the video captures of Pat & Dave first on Stan’s video tape and then shows the faces as they appear on Robbert’s digital camera 4 hours later. I believe I have found something significant and wanted to alert you to it.

It is clear from the images as they appear on Robbert’s digital camera around 5 AM that they are lifted perfectly and intact from the same 1991 video and then fiddled with using whatever photo software Robbert has. (Doesn’t even need to be Photoshop.)

But I had yet to look at the other images as they first appeared in Stan’s video of Robbert at 1 AM or so that fateful morning. At first glance, I was convinced that they had to be different separate images. Why? because Dave and Pat were looking off in different directions. In the digital camera images, as I am facing the screen, Pat Delgado is looking over my right shoulder while Dave Chorley is looking over my left shoulder.

But scrolling up to the Stan video captures, Dave looks to my right while Pat looks to my left. Just the reverse. I then compared the images again and Bingo! Eureka! Whoa! I see that the images are identical, but only mirror-reversed!

And then I eventually got the bright idea of going inside the house to get a hand mirror and return to my studio and actually compare the photos on the screen with their images reflected in my mirror.

How wonderful! I can now see the evidence of image-reversing without having to scroll up and down.

I think you will be as intrigued as I am about this Roanoke, Virginia crop circle adventure of Nancy and Robbert. It appears to be a “hoax within a hoax,” or maybe more accurately a hoax about a hoaxed crop circle.

Pay close attention to the dates of the events that unfold. And the “dramatis personae.”

I first learned of this circle when I happened to listen to this radio interview
Open Minds Radio hosted by Alejandro Rojas uploaded May 24, 2011

This is a 90 minute program and Nancy and Robert do not appear until a half hour in. If you would like to hear Nancy and Robbert speaking, then start listening at the 31:30 mark where Nancy describes the special surprise which is the Roanoke, VA crop circle hoax. She goes on until 37:35 when Robbert speaks and this episode ends at 40:50.

The man who reported the crop circle is Tom Howell and he wrote two articles for the Roanoke paper about it. Again, note the dates.

Tom Howell made an award-winning 16mm documentary on parapsychology in the 1970s. In the 1990s he had a 400-page website on psychic phenomena that continues to this day. Tom travels the world reporting on strange phenomena. Contact Tom at psychicinvestigator@yahoo.com.

What is so fascinating about this adventure is the closed loop nature of the people involved. Tom Howell is a psychic investigator. The teenager, Mike Collins, is not just a paper boy for the Roanoke paper, he is specifically Tom Howell’s paper boy!

Are we to believe that there is no possible way that Robbert in Holland could have been tipped off in advance about the identity and description of the crop circle “hoaxer?” Especially when the hoaxer is the very paper boy of the man who reports the crop circle to Nancy who just happens to have a keen inner feeling that the circle is a hoax circle? And that the man who reported it himself has made a film about psychic phenomena?

Now I don’t know if you have an equivalent there “across the pond,” Colin, but here in the States we have American Professional Wrestling which is so obviously fake and scripted, that everyone knows it and no one above the age of 14 pretends otherwise. But this Delgado-Chorley stunt and this Roanoke crop circle hoax convince me that when Nancy, Suzanne and Robbert are confronted with the fact that American Professional Wrestling is fake and scripted, they continue to pretend it’s real. They actually believe it’s real. Are they really that childish?